From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 5513 invoked by alias); 18 Jun 2003 04:34:20 -0000 Mailing-List: contact gcc-bugs-help@gcc.gnu.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: Sender: gcc-bugs-owner@gcc.gnu.org Received: (qmail 5475 invoked by uid 48); 18 Jun 2003 04:34:19 -0000 Date: Wed, 18 Jun 2003 04:34:00 -0000 Message-ID: <20030618043419.5473.qmail@sources.redhat.com> From: "austern at apple dot com" To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org In-Reply-To: <20030617231527.11228.austern@apple.com> References: <20030617231527.11228.austern@apple.com> Reply-To: gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug c++/11228] [3.3/3.4 regression] ICE on new-expression using array operator new and default-initialization X-Bugzilla-Reason: CC X-SW-Source: 2003-06/txt/msg01989.txt.bz2 List-Id: PLEASE REPLY TO gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org ONLY, *NOT* gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org. http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=11228 austern at apple dot com changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- AssignedTo|unassigned@gcc.gnu.org |austern@apple.com ------- Additional Comments From austern at apple dot com 2003-06-18 04:34 ------- Here's my understanding of 5.3.4/p14: an expression like "new T[n](a,b,c)" is illegal, but an expression like "new T[n]()" is legal. (The former is the gcc extension that Wolfgang was referring to.) The point is that 5.3.4/p14 explicitly distinguishes between a new-initializer of the form "()" and one that's non-empty. It prohibits the latter for array new expressions, but says nothing about the former. And just to make life a little more fun, "new T[n]" and "new T[n]()" don't always mean quite the same thing. I've confirmed my interpretation with the C++ standards committee.